Zarggg

Download the 2.2 exe and replace the 2.0.4 exe with that file. You won't need to reinstall it if you do that. Edit: As an afterthought, you might want to go through the installation again. I forgot that there were major settings changes between the two branches.

I agree with Firon, and to me it's an issue of principle. Whitelisting by build number basically means that the admins feel that their tracker is an exclusive club that client developers must jump through hoops so that their clients can "get in". BitTorrent has a defined protocol and an RFC. Any well-designed client with a half-competent development team should work essentially the same way, anyway.

All this means is that there was a release to 2.2 (stable) after the last release to 2.2.1 (beta). It may or may not be a crucial bugfix, and it's possible that the changes might be merged to 2.2.1 or 3.0. Build numbers are sequential among all three branches.

Sounds like all the people who are complaining are the ones who don't bother reading installer prompts. I've installed uTorrent countless times since they introduced the toolbar. I've unchecked it every time and not once has the toolbar been installed. Looks to me like the problem is on the user end.

Did I miss something here?

I think I agree with Firon et al when I say that those sites have a bass-ackwards way of "approving" clients.

╔════════════════╦═══════════╦═══════════╦══════════╗ ║CONNECTION TYPE ║ UPLOAD ║CONNECTIONS║MAX ACTIVE║ ║(UPLOAD MAXIMUM)║Limit│Slots║ Torr│ MAX ║Torr│Down.║ ╠════════════════╬═════╪═════╬═════╪═════╬════╪═════╣ ║ DEFAULT ║ 20│ 3║ 30│ 40║ 2│ 1║ ║ Dial-up (28.8k)║ 2│ 1║ 4│ 5║ 1│ 1║ ║ 100 mbit/sec ║10000│ 40║ 200│ 1000║ 100│ 40║ ╠════════════════╬═════╪═════╬═════╪═════╬════╪═════╣ ║CONNECTION TYPE ║ UPLOAD ║CONNECTIONS║MAX ACTIVE║ ║(UPLOAD MAXIMUM)║Limit│Slots║ Torr│ MAX ║Torr│Down.║ ╚════════════════╩═════╧═════╩═════╧═════╩════╧═════╝ That won't work being pasted into the existing content?

@Bjurran: Have you referenced the chart in http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=58404 relative to measured upload rate? That might be the first step to look at.

I do understand his purpose. I just get tired of seeing it done with a negative spin.

@rafi: Okay, the down-talking is getting pretty old. If you're happy staying with 2.0.4, you don't have to upgrade.

Minor graphics bug in the installer (text of checkbox is cut off):

You shouldn't be using tabs with monospaced fonts anyway; just use spaces. Edit: Actually just looked through the header/footer of the chart real quick; you just need to put in some extra "═" characters to fill in where it looks like the body cells were extended past original lengths. If you want, I could hack out the fixed header and footer for you (I just checked it in Notepad and it looks good to me).

If I'm understanding the specs for the BitTorrent protocol correctly, if a zero-byte file is defined and hashed, the client is still expected to create the file on the downloader's filesystem.

Yeah, I'll give that a 0% chance.

But these torrents are FINISHED! Who cares if their files are in place or not? uT doesn't operate with them until torrent status' changing. What is unsane to check their availability on changing torrent status? I've actually got to agree with Firon's logic on this one. If the torrents are "finished" as you say, but you have unmounted the drive or moved the files to a place where they cannot currently be seeded from, what's the purpose of even having it loaded in the program? Just save a copy of the .torrent file with the files so you can reload it if or when you decide to seed them again.

Then I won't use it. Yeah, can't really see how abandoning a time-trusted transmission standard that is used just about everywhere else can be beneficial. Especially since users are apparently still running into issues with the implementation.

No.

Actually, this is pretty much what I've come from consumers: they expect beta and alpha-quality builds to be fully-featured and bug-free, and they will choose to use an inferior program just because it "looks prettier".

Yeah, that was kind of the gist of my post.

Google translation: As far as I know, none of the test locations work anymore.

@SnakeDoctor: Total speculation (I do not know how uTorrent handles this internally), but the fact that you have nearly 400 torrents loaded at once may have something to do with it.

Yes.

They haven't. Comments like that don't help anything. Unless you have a specific bug to report, please keep this thread clear of "omg this sucks going back to <old version>". It gets really old after a while.

The purpose of alpha- and beta-testing is so that these errors can be found before a program is said to be stable for general consumption.

@420: I never said you did, either. That was the plural "you" (as in "all of you", as in "everyone"). I could have said "one should never..." but I figured people would understand this and not get all upset over nothing. @Cage22: localhost is a reserved hostname, which means 127.0.0.1 subnet mask 255.0.0.0. Your computer's name is usually a domain.